Reading Time: 8 minutesThere is a contradiction between progressives defending democratic principles, and proponents of the traditional family. This conflict is not limited to the well-known dispute between the Democratic Party and Conservatives in Congress. The problem is much older and far-reaching than that, as illustrated in this article by Chandrakala Padia. She concludes that when it comes to feminist issues there is not much difference between liberal theory and the elitist model of democracy. The theorists all assume that the structure of social relations and inequality has no effect on political equality and democratic citizenship. I would argue that patriarchy weakens participation by women and strengthens oligarchy.
Western Women and the Specter of a Traditional Standard
Today, after 200 years of women’s ‘liberation’, the issue is further clouded by the fact that Western women are held to the traditional standard in more subtle ways. It has been argued that the failure to account for the structural difficulties women face in political participation has crippled the development of democracy. Today, as members of Congress strive to return women to more traditional roles, this is a serious problem for democracy. Chandrakala Padia’s article is a good way to begin this discussion.
Theoretical Models of Democracy
Padia states that current political practices are the result of four theoretical models of democracy. The participatory model of democracy, attributed to J. J. Rousseau, is the last of four models, but in her opinion it is the most hopeful model for the democratic citizen. The other three theoretical models will be discussed following the discussion of the participatory model. They are: the Protective model of Bentham and J. S. Mill; the Developmental model of J. S. Mill; and the Elitist model of Joseph Schumpeter.
The Participatory/developmental Theory of Democracy
The participatory/developmental theory is my category, not Padia’s. I’m trying to lessen the confusion of J. S. Mill being categorized under two of the models: Mill developed both the protective model of democracy with Jeremy Bentham, and Rousseau’s classical participatory model. (For Padia, ‘classical’ refers to a model that retains its moral content. By comparison, she says the elitist model has been emptied of its moral content.)
J. S. Mill
J. S. Mill agreed with the protective model of Bentham but he valued participation more than Bentham. Padia calls his model the developmental model of democracy. Mill differs from Bentham in the following way: for Bentham, participation only ensured that private interests of each citizen were protected. But for Mill participation had a much wider function. It is central for the maintenance of a democratic polity and a participatory society. So Mill advocates for adult franchise (including female franchise). He thinks subordination of one sex to another is wrong in itself and hinders human improvement. Therefore, it should be replaced by perfect equality.
However, Mill also agrees with Rousseau on the social inferiority of women. He assumed that wives would always be willing to accept the ‘natural’ arrangements, and failed to see sources of male authority over women outside of legal forms, such as economic authority. He ended up promoting liberty in the political realm and subjugation at home. In Mill’s model, patriarchy weakens participation by women and strengthens oligarchy. He disguises his patriarchal bias by separating the private and public lives of women.
The Patriarchal Influence of Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel
One explanation for this is that both Mill and Rousseau use the patriarchal logic of Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel. These men believed that men by nature possess capacities required for citizenship and justice, while women by nature lack such political morality. For Mill this is a contradiction, because he also argued that individuals develop a sense of justice through participation in a wide range of public institutions. It would be more logical if he had called for women to develop their sense of ‘political morality’ through participation.
According to Padia, “the inadequacies of Mill’s analysis arise from his support for the public private dichotomy. He tries to adorn woman with all political rights, but deprives her of equal status in the family…”
The most charitable excuse that can be made for Mill’s patriarchal bias is the dogmatic influence of the Greek philosophers. In spite of their oligarchical leanings, their writings have become the undisputed foundation of what passes for reason, even in societies that call themselves democratic. This is not rational. Patriarchy weakens participation by women and strengthens oligarchy.
J. J. Rousseau
Rousseau’s indifference to women is also in conflict with his own theory.
Rousseau expects individuals to develop a sense of responsibility through the participatory process. He is convinced that, as a result of participating in decision-making, the individual can be educated to distinguish between his own good and bad impulses and desires, and to harmonize the two states of public and private citizenship. Further Rousseau finds a close connection between participation and control; for the more a man participates the more control he gets over the political process. And it is here that one can see the true meaning of freedom. For unless each individual is forced, through participation, into socially responsible action, there can be no law which ensures everyone’s freedom.
But then he argues that women’s distinct position and functions are those that are natural to her sex. He justifies the absolute rule of men over their wives, the confinement of women to their home after marriage, and a strict moral education for women, so that family life may not be disturbed by transgressions.
The entire education of women must be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to be loved and honored by them, to rear them when they are young, to care for them when they are grown up, to counsel and console, to make their lives pleasant and charming, these are the duties of women at all times and they should be taught them in their childhood…
Misogyny and its Antidote
Rousseau even promotes the idea that the female sex is the source of major evils in the civilized world. Like Mill, he contradicts the essence of his own theories of democracy. These contradictions should be the focus of democrats going forward.
If Patriarchy weakens participation by women and strengthens oligarchy, the recognition and elimination of patriarchal attitudes in democratic theory would begin to address this tendency toward oligarchy. Padia thinks there is reason for hope in a new type of democratic theorist:
Thus we find that both Rousseau and Mill accept the patriarchal suppression of civil liberty, and look on domestic life as having no bearing at all on public life which is one of the many defects of the participatory model. But, I hasten to add, this cannot be said of political philosophers like Carole Pateman, who are also proponents of participatory democracy.
Carole Pateman
According to Pateman, the concept of participatory democracy comprises three ideas:
- “Individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in isolation from one another.” for we may add the improvement of an individual importantly depends on his membership of a wider whole. Indeed, says Pateman, what is required is the maximum participation of people in all spheres of society; for it would on the one hand help in developing individual talent, and, on the other, lend richness and variety to the fabric of participatory society.
- “Spheres such as industry should be seen as political systems in their own right, offering areas of participation [in] addition to the national level”. And here the authority structure should be so organized that maximum workers may participate in decision-making. This would slowly lead to the abolition of the permanent distinction between the owners and the owned.
- Participation means not only taking part in elections, but also having an effective voice in the making of decisions. it also means that people have the power to change their own decisions if they do not yield the desired results.
One Democratic Ideal is Still Missing: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity
Even though these points provide key features of democracy, Chandrakala Padia finds that an important component is still missing. Participation should be regulated by the three cardinal ideals of democracy–liberty, equality, and fraternity.
A mere extension of the range of participation does not guarantee that the working together is making for a desirable goal.
Still, Padia gives Pateman the credit for insisting on the ideal of sexual equality. She asserts that neither the equal opportunity of liberalism, nor the active participatory democratic citizenship of one and all can be achieved without radical changes in personal and domestic life.
Basic Tenets and Theorists of the Elitist Model
Most writers today adhere to the elitist model of democracy. This is where the cumulative effects of the patriarchal bias, and the oligarchical structures that arise from it, become apparent. The basic tenets of the elitist model can be stated as:
1. It’s the leaders who really matter and not the masses they lead. Michels says the majority are ‘predestined by tragic necessity to submit to dominion of a small minority, and must be content to constitute the pedestal of oligarchy’.
2. Democracy is merely a method for arriving at political, administrative, and legislative decisions, and is hence incapable of being an end in itself.
3. Active participation of the people leads to totalitarianism. Schumpeter says, “Party and machine politicians are simply the response to the fact that the electoral mass is incapable of action other than a stampede…” The people, Sartori says, only ‘react’, they do not ‘act’. Therefore it would be wiser to accept the facts as they are, because trying to change them would endanger the very stability of the political system.
Stability is Emphasized by Elitist Theorists
Stability is emphasized by elitist theorists. According to Schumpeter, stability comes from the long-lasting nature of political loyalties, and flexibility comes from the fact that it’s the elite who wield the power in a democracy. They are supposedly able to overcome any threats to the system by virtue of their superior intellectual gifts.
Joseph Schumpeter
The main proponent of the elitist model is Joseph Schumpeter, who wrote Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy in 1942. Mosca, Michels, and Sartori also support this theory. This model contends that the classical (moral) model rested on empirically unrealistic foundations. It asserts that democracy can never lead to the improvement of mankind, and that participation has hardly any value in itself. The purpose of democracy is simply to register the desires of people as they are, not to contribute to their ennoblement.
Democracy is simply a kind of market mechanism: ‘the voters are the consumers; the politicians are the entrepreneurs’. The role of people is merely to produce a government, not to ensure that it be efficient and right-minded. According to Schumpeter: “…the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”.
Bernard Barelson
According to Barelson, classical theory concentrated on individual citizens and ignored the political system. It did not realize that limited participation and apathy have a positive function for the system.
Robert Dahl
Robert Dahl thinks classical theory is invalid and inadequate for his own theory of polyarchy, or the rule of multiple minorities. Following Schumpeter, he says democracy is a political method that centers on the electoral process. Elections are central in providing a mechanism that controls leaders by non-leaders. He says political equality must not be defined as equality of political control or power for lower socio-economic status groups. Political equality means universal suffrage. But he warns of dangers in increased participation by ordinary man. It could lead to polyarchy and decrease stability.
Giovanni Sartori
Giovanni Sartori, who wrote Democratic Theory in 1942, said there is an unbridgeable gap between ‘classical’ theory and reality. He claims the democratic ideal (the ideal of leveling) works against democracy and participation leads to totalitarianism. He recommends not trying to increase participation. Power resides in those who avail themselves of it.
Harry Eckstein
Eckstein said that we must understand the nature of non-governmental social relationships in families, schools, economic organization, etc. He claims that you can’t democratize some authority structures such as socialization in school and family, and some capitalist organizations. They resist change and therefore add to stability.
Participation for the majority is the participation in the choice of decision-makers. The function is protective and protects individuals from arbitrary decisions by elected leaders. This justifies the democratic method, in his view.
Conclusion
The entire body of democratic theory leans toward oligarchy. This tendency has been disguised, even by the defenders of participation. In retrospect, the rise of the elitist model seems inevitable. This model does not limit itself to the supposed flaws of women; it is hostile to the participation of both sexes.
Many of the tactics we saw in the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as the insulting attitudes about progressive goals, can be explained by the party establishment’s acceptance of the elitist model. Patriarchy weakens participation by women and strengthens oligarchy. The remedy is a participatory model of democracy as represented by Carole Pateman and other feminist theorists. However, its effectiveness would depend on whether we are able to restructure social relations in the home.
American Democracy Owes a Debt to Indigenous Americans
